what's up with all the esi hate?

[Adam Strange]

It is best to address issues on a point-by-point basis.

Personally, I learned a lot about Capitalism by studying Communism. As a result, I now hold a number of pretty unconventional views. In fact, some of them probably make me sound like the guy I spoke with this weekend who said that some mark on the dollar bill proves we are all property. Lol. That's crazy, but what is even worse about believing that stuff is that it leads you to false conclusions and false consequences. They are not effective beliefs.

Here are two examples of my unconventional views without an explanation. I believe that WW I was a resource war, primarily fought over food requirements in Europe, but secondarily over oil (which is also a resource), and I believe that the US school system has two primary purposes; one, to propagate the class structure and two, to prevent any possibility of revolution in the US. Those are not views you hold by listening to mainstream news, and both positions can be defended (but not by me right now).

I also think that a lot of what @Sol is saying is correct, to one degree or another. But you have to discuss exactly what you are talking about to determine that degree.

[Ave]

Fine I'll address it point by point. I probably should be doing something more productive. I don't undersatnd why Sol's posts are valid while mine are propaganda. But I'll try.

Stupid propaganda.

I've already adressed this. Yes, the line you quoted was propaganda, as I've already said in one of my earlier posts, it doesn't stop it from being true (the facts not the narrative)

Communism killed no one.

Well, we could say that ideas don't really kill people, people kill people. But then you have to remember that our ideas influence the way we think and thus our behavior, and in that sense the same rule must applied to all ideologies. If I admit your statement to be true, I can also replace communism with: fascism, nazism, capitalism, radical Islam etc. None of these ideologies/ideas killed anyone, byt you can't argue their followers have a track record of respecting human life.

It's only collective humanistic ideology with the task to allow anyone to do the best he can for the interests of the most.

In theory, this sounds nice maybe. In practice, this has been shown to be unrealistic and a utopic vision. Also, not everyone would agree with this ideology, even in theory.

Which is opposite to egocentric ideologies like cannibalistic liberalism/capitalism which is like cancer and criminals.

This to me, sounds like a narrative of "communism is good, because the intents are good, capitalism is bad because the intent is egoism". Should the intent be the only factor in determining what a person or group of persons is doing is good? What about de-ontology(the actions themselves)? Or teleology (consequence)?

Formal communists killed mostly the ones who were against the interests of humanity and the most of people (in nation, for example).

Who is anyone, communist or not, to determine what is in the interests of humanity? And isn't it contradictory to say that they claimed to be for the interests of humanity and yet killed people who didn't agree with them? Does judging what s in the interests of humanity give one a license to kill? Isn't that the epitome of contradiction, or are communist leaders not subject to the same scrutiny as the rest of humanity?

For example, they killed and supressed fascists and other antihumanistic scum.

Walk the walk. For you to call fascists "scum" shows you do not have value for human life - you devalue the lives of others. Who are you to judge who is scum and who isn't? Who is to be deprived of humanity and who isn't? It is entirely subjective.

Fascism in essence is individualistic ideology

Pretty false. The only individuals valued in fascism are the party leaders. In that sense it is pretty similar to Maoism/Stalinism/leninism. See why above.

close to liberalism

Liberalism is based upon social contract, mainly John Locke and his conception of natural rights and the state being a creation of man to uphold these rights . Thus liberalism believes that everyone has equal rights before law.

Fascism is rooted in the idea that the state is prior to man, that the state has an existence anterior to the social contract and the official creation of the state, since the state is viewed as a historical force. In that sense, fascism is much similar to marxism, the difference being that Marx viewed historical dialectic to be a question of struggle between classes, not nations. In that sense neither fascism nor communism respect the idea all individuals have equal rights before law, fascism and leninism both believe that the state can take unlawful actions against individuals if that furthers the cause of the state, simply because the state is not believed to be a construct of man.

So liberalism, fascism, and communism are all fairly different and saying one very similar to the other is pretty sloppy (though I suspect just dishonest).

(including today capitalism) under the surface cover of national socialism.

No, there is really little in common with national socialism and today's capitalism. Sorry bro, you're gonna have to do better than that. You're going to actually have to justify this statement.

Try to count how many people were killed by the rule of egocentric capitalists and similar individualistic ideologies. Many more. Who and why were killed? Common people to more rob and exploit them.

I'm not denying people were killed in the name of capitalism, but why are you denying people were killed in the name of communism? Why is one not a killin and the other is? Are you simply judging by motives here? Because I'm not. Killing is killing, de-ontoloically speaking, regardless of with what intentions.

Who made war in Syria with mad islamists? - USA's scum.

Again, you're going to have to explain what you mean here.

Who arised ******? - USA and Britain. Who organised both World Wars? - USA and partly Britain.

Who did many wars in 20 century? Mostly capitalists.

Who makes terrible life conditions to other nations by robing them where people die from crimes, sickness and other negative factors, can't to born children because of poverty - capitalists.

What [besides taking part in civil war] USSR did in Afganistan? - built factories, roads, schools.

What USA do there? - rise drugs and support the economical backwardness. USSR cared about people. USA just robs for own needs. This is the difference.

This is balck and white thinking. The British empire built roads in India and French and Belgian colonialists did the same in Africa. Does that justify colonialism? No, but it does prove that I too can cherry pick facts to fuel any cockameme narrative of history.

Also there are huge falsifications in anti-communistic propaganda. Like idiotic numbers about 100 millions killed in USSR for political reasons.

Noone is actually throwing around those numbers. I believe the number was that Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, Mao around 50 million, including the "greap leap forward".

There were 2 hard wars: civil and with ******ists, and this leaded to ~700 death condemnations for politics during 1922-1953 years. Significant part of those political were prisoned nazis and their helpers. And some have died being prisoned due to different reasons. ~2-3 mil in sum. You may count what is that % of USSR population and then compare the % of killed/died during civil wars and inprisoned enemies in other countries like USA and France. You'll find nothing special about communists there.

No, more people were killed than 2-3 million by the USSR, also the number of people killed in the USA and France, respectively was much lower.

I suspect my efforts here will be fruitless. Common language, useful to dialogue, is lacking here. Common concepts are laso lacking. It is useless to discuss with a communsim theorist, since for a communist everything done in the name of the "greater truth" is justified, which is why communist countries never have a problem with people being killed by the millions, since its done in the name of a "greater truth". Capitalism is not founded on such premises, which is American society and government goes through periods of such questioning and scrutiny over little violations, where communism shurgs mass killings in the name of its "good". It is faith, not thinking, that is at work behind communism.

[Kernel]

I was reading Jung the other day and he seems to be describing Si types just from a negative perspective. Basically he says that the perception of the real world of Si types is useless, that we are all powerless, primitive, archaic, with poor logics (even if they have T, it doesnt work), with poor skills of any kind, bad artists etc. His perception of Introverted Elements in general is negative, among them Si and Ti. So I dont think there is something as generalized hatred in socionics, it really depends on the author.

Indeed, it's really a matter of perception. For Jung, his perception of Si can be becasue he's Ni ego (perhaps IEI), I've seen some Ni ego types who perceive Si this way. Like Ne would perceive Se as close minded.

----

I think the description written by I/O is quite accurate. I really like his descriptions because he speaks about types internally not just superficially. My friend is ESI-Fi and she fits that description and she's one of the best people I've met until now. She is always stressed by anything new that happens, very careful around new people. Notes of suffering were apparent in her eyes. We try to make her talk to us about what's bothering her but she often refuses and keeps feeding her suffering. The only thing in ESIs that I find kind of off putting, is their harsh judgment, when they leave no room for another possibility until maybe you point it out.

[Ave]

Here are some facts concerning the death toll under Stalin.

According to Service, Stalin was "one of the most notorious figures in history", one who ordered "the systematic killing of people on a massive scale".^[821] Khlevniuk stated that Stalin's actions "upended or utterly destroyed literally millions upon millions of lives",^[837]suggesting that at least 60 million people faced some form of repression or discrimination under Stalin's regime.^[844] Official records show that 800,000 were shot in the Soviet Union between 1930 and 1952, although a larger number died during torture or as a result of poor conditions in labour camps. Many more died as a result of famines and starvation; particularly during the 1932–33 famine.^[844]In his 2008 edition of The Great Terror, Conquest stated that "at least 15 million people" were killed by "the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors", although acknowledged that exact numbers will never be known.^[845] The historian and archival researcher Stephen G. Wheatcroftattributes roughly 3 million deaths to the Stalinist regime, including those from criminal negligence but excluding famine deaths, which he and historian R. W. Davies estimate to be around 5.5 to 6.5 million.^[846][847] The American historian Timothy D. Snyder asserts that while the Nazi regime killed 11–12 million non-combatants, Stalin's was responsible for about 6–9 million, negating claims that Stalin killed more than ******.^[848]
Historians continue to debate whether or not the Holodomor should be called a genocide.^[849] Among Ukrainian nationalists is popular the idea that Stalin consciously organised the 1932–33 famine to suppress the nationalist desires of the Ukrainian people.^[370] This has been rejected by recent historical studies.^[370] These have articulated the view that—while Stalin's policies contributed significantly to the high mortality rate—there is no evidence that Stalin or the Soviet government consciously engineered the famine.^[850] The historian Norman Naimark noted that although there may not be sufficient "evidence to convict him in an international court of justice as a genocidaire[...] that does not mean that the event itself cannot be judged as genocide".^[851]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph...ns_of_genocide

So even according to the most "optimistic" estimates, that of American historian Timothy Snyder, Stalin alone (not including Lenin and the other periods of the USSR) was responsible about 6-9 million which is more than the 2-3 million you claimed, @Sol.

It also says it is estimated some 60 million people faced some kind of repression or discimination under his regime. Where all these people nazis as you claim?

Now where is the proof of the 2-3 million people killed in France and the USA?

[Sol]

I also think that a lot of what @Sol is saying is correct, to one degree or another. But you have to discuss exactly what you are talking about to determine that degree.

The main problem about political discussions is that people know not good what they discuss. But they know propaganda from mass medias. While that propaganda follows the rules of war, where the task is to destroy or supress the opponent instead of giving the objective truth.
Seems most on West think about communism it's what was in countries ruled by communistic parties, while officially they had _socialism_. And do not think that communism was the leading economical form befor settled agrarian cultures appeared at the end of glacial period 7-8000 bc. It's just collective approach to peoples needs, as opposition to individualistic liberal. And it's where we all may come with the development of computers, which can establish more effective centralized economy and social control.
The today problem is - will it be humanistic (communism alike) or anti-humanistic (liberalism alike, neo-feudal with classes). It's what will be the problem during the near centuries. The 1st needs hard changes in peoples minds - to remove egocentric ideas at maximum, - by upbringing, education, etc. While the 2nd needs to degrade the most people morally and intellectually to control them. Only the 1st variant will allow evolution of humanity as a kind. The 2nd will lead to wars and dark ages, as humanity needs to grow as persons to have the technology it develops. We can't stay monkies after getting granades in our hands.

Is this problem discussed on Western mass medias? I doubt. Why? Because the are under the control of the 2nd way dudes. They want it because they knew only this way to live during centuries and got power by this way. They became narrow minded and amoral to accept the communism which becomes obligate with today technological growth. They just need to release the personal power and allow humanity to grow naturally, and to help in this as they have the knowledge. But they can't do it by irrational personal scares. Such they'll fight against anyone who tries the 1st way. The 2nd way you may see in the decreasing mass education and morality levels, - they need weak and disorganised slaves to control, not normal human. In the rising disproportions of incomes inside countries. In rising of hard censorship and public lie. In new laws which allow to do much with you without good reasons. USA allows torments of prisoned, to keep arrested indifinite time, to steal children from families without adequate reasons, makes overturnes and wars anywhere to degrade and clearly rob those nations, - a lot of bad things which you'd never thought to happen in 1950s. As in 1950s there was USSR which shaw other way to develop and to live, though partly on paper only, - there was humanistic opposition and 2nd way which tried to establish by ****** was supressed for some time. Now ******ism and antihumanistic ideas are popularised in medias and there is political background, it's part of image for "new world".

[Ave]

I addressed Sol on a point by point basis, but I feel I am wasting my time.

This is on the level of Alex Jones or some other conspiracy bullshit.

Next I'm gonna be reading about how lizard people are behind capitalism or some other bullshit.

Also, why are Sol's posts valid, where he accuses me of propganda, is that point valid too? Why are Sol's posts valid and mine are propaganda?

I'm out. Have fun with the factless discourse folks.

[falsehope]

In Poland popularization of communism or nasizm is 2 years sentence without suspension. This also goes for spreading any other totalitarian idea. The police can jail you for wearing USSR symbols. There's no way to defend it in court as it's written in constitution.

[whodat]

In Poland popularization of communism or nasizm is 2 years sentence without suspension. This also goes for spreading any other totalitarian idea. The police can jail you for wearing USSR symbols. There's no way to defend it in court as it's written in constitution.

Freaking what's her face was right, when the state decides what words you can utter that is fascism of the worst kind. The pendulum can swing both ways. Similar things in my country for special protections against Muslim or Islam. If you say something negative you could be liable.

[ooo]

lol the thread derail in here <3

[Tigerfadder]

I guess ESI can be dramaqueens. Selfcentered in a way that create drama.

[Sol]

I guess ESI can be dramaqueens. Selfcentered in a way that create drama.

Egocentrism should not be type related.
Probably base Fi types have it the least noticable on the surface as Fi relates to compassion to others and behaving close to be liked by others. While base Fe types have the most noticable - in loud emotional praising of own personality.

[Tigerfadder]

Egocentrism should not be type related.
Probably base Fi types have it the least noticable on the surface as Fi relates to compassion to others and behaving close to be liked by others. While base Fe types have the most noticable - in loud emotional praising of own personality.

Yes, but they still are drama queens, even tho not all are egoistic. Some of them anyways. That is the information they deal with.

[Sol]

Yes, but they still are drama queens

Like all F types. But they are quieter drama queens than Fe ones.

[Tigerfadder]

Like all F types. But they are quieter drama queens than Fe ones.

ya. But what I noticed with ESI is 1 they put all their insecurities and discomfort deep inside themselves and then let it out eventually in a strong way (Se) and 2 they create a system of right and wrong which could probably be so that they do not do 1.

[Tigerfadder]

But ya they still be drama queen.

[Adam Strange]

ESI’s can appear physically attractive and emotionally cold, bordering on punitive. This can create a bad impression in many people.

Yesterday, I was walking home from the bank. I live near a University athletic complex, and four female runners passed me like the wind. Se-ego’s all, I thought. A few minutes later, a single runner approached me, walking. Her running tights were black with bold diagonal stripes, with some of the spaces between stripes being see-through. I thought, only an ESI would be able to find something that amazing. It was, of course, like a work of art, with her as the canvas.
As she got closer, sure enough, she VI’d ESI. I thought I’d say something quick in passing to brighten her day, so as she got close, I said, “Great tights.” I find that almost everyone likes to be complemented on their hat or jacket or something.
Her reaction: nothing. She didn’t look toward me, didn’t smile, didn’t indicate that I existed in any way. Just completely stone-faced. And then she was past me.

At first, I was shocked, then I inexplicably started feeling like a pervert.
Finally, I thought, “Yep. That was an ESI.”

I can’t understand why everyone doesn’t want more of that, all the time.

[Sol]

ESI’s can appear physically attractive and emotionally cold

F types are not emotionally cold. Fi types may give such impression for Fe valued types, compared to Fe types. Or mb for people who knows them too little.
E-9 ESI may supress external emotions higher than other ESI.

> As she got closer, sure enough, she VI’d ESI.

Or you tend to type sporty girls with see-through clothes to own duals.

[ooo]

F types are not emotionally cold. Fi types may give such impression for Fe valued types, compared to Fe types. Or mb for people who knows them too little.

You should meet my sister. Once we went out to eat at this restaurant and when the waiter brought the first orders he got confused with what she had ordered and she simply said "this is not what I ordered" in such a bitchy tone that for the rest of the night the same waiter was shaking every time he was approaching our table, and when giving her the next plate he was so scared that he blushed and made something drop... panic!

[Sol]

You should meet my sister. Once we went out to eat at this restaurant and when the waiter brought the first orders he got confused with what she had ordered and she simply said "this is not what I ordered" in such a bitchy tone that for the rest of the night the same waiter was shaking every time he was approaching our table, and when giving her the next plate he was so scared that he blushed and made something drop... panic!

Emotionally cold was about the lack of emotions. Seems your sister have expressed her negative emotions good enough to impress the waiter. This does not mean she's F type, but used emotions good.
I'd watch the video with her to check what type she has there. I like ESI, if she has it indeed.

[ooo]

Emotionally cold was about the lack of emotions. Seems your sister have expressed her negative emotions good enough to impress the waiter. This does not mean she's F type, but used emotions good.

I reported this episode to describe how cold ESIs can come off. She definitely didnt empathize with the waiter, although errors are common and can happen to anyone. Especially if you have a full restaurant on a Saturday evening. She simply stated that it wasnt the order she made, but the tone was as cold as bitchy. I guess cold can be interpreted differently for 7 billions of people, in general though, when you don't show any sign of empathy, and act as if you have all the rights to be rude, that's what's described as "cold". No doubt there's still feeling anyway, they're always there ; ) even if you T

[Sol]

I reported this episode to describe how cold ESIs can come off.

She is not cold (not emotional) in the context of the discusssion.

> She definitely didnt empathize with the waiter

Anyone may express negative emotions. She was effective, while did nothing inappropriate by words or actions. Only played by intonations to inspire guilt in a worker so he better followed own duties.
Though I do not reject other possble types for her. What is clear - she's doubtfully to be E-9, which tend to hold own anger inside until inadequate "boom".

> although errors are common and can happen to anyone

And she has fixed them with minimum efforts and without excessive violence and humilation. Has cared about the needs of herself and people depending on that worker, has reduced his possibility to be dismissed.

> She simply stated that it wasnt the order she made, but the tone was as cold as bitchy.

"cold" tone and low compassion to the worker, but good emotionality

> and act as if you have all the rights to be rude

She was lesser rude than many people would in that situation.

[ooo]

...Sol were u sitting in the table next to us? AHA.

you dont know how that turned out! or what she did or not lol

>"cold" tone and low compassion to the worker, but good emotionality<

yes very cold

[The Reality Denialist]

Sol is exemplar of Causal deterministic cognition. Gulenko basically wrote it to essentially describe LSI's. I don't think he did good job with it. Too singular.

[spacious]

ESI can be very narrow-minded in how they relate to someone. There is no openness to the other person, just their own "truth" paired with the urging character of creative Se.

It's like they monopolize the relationship and if you deviate from that in any way, they will look perplexed and maybe blame you for that.

They don't notice this in themselves because the base function feels so natural.

The functions should be used for some task, not as a general way to relate to someone, for that you have to be present as a whole human being, and that goes far beyond Socionics.

But, it depends on the person, as usual. In developed, mature ESIs you don't see this negative trait so much. This goes for all types btw. Neurotic persons tend to be caught up in the ego functions as if it was the whole person. It's like they become identified with their type.

I found this and your other comment in this thread to be among the most insightful observations I have read on this website. I’ve been keeping the idea here in mind of late — the tendency of an ESI to monopolize relationships. It’s 1000% true ime, that using Fi alone to relate to a person is truly not enough to let them in, to see them. As you say, it goes far beyond socionics (and how to get there, hasnt been so clear to me over the years. Have been finding my way a bit lately, though, which perhaps is why I feel secure making this comment at this point)

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

what kind of strength is, "esi are good at picking out flaws and faults"?

You don't get fooled by peoples' bullshit facades as much. Comes in handy in this world because all you've got is yourself in the end.

[Claudius]

I haven't seen much hate against this type. I personally get along with them well, but think they sometimes need to be a bit more lenient with others. However, every type has its flaws and ESIs are no exception, but they all also have their strengths.

[adage]

I haven't seen much hate against this type. I personally get along with them well, but think they sometimes need to be a bit more lenient with others. However, every type has its flaws and ESIs are no exception, but they all also have their strengths.

There was around the time the thread was made, they were mostly called moralizing jerks and a bunch of generic insults, mostly in the chat box.
Each type gets their turn on the hate wheel.

[Bethanyclaire]

I like ESIs a lot and always glad to talk to them. I've had sleep problems for so long and I finally talked to a female ESI doc, and she gave me solid, clear advice. Simple advice...but she knew that's what I needed.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Did you hear the one about me being a prick?
Did you know I don't care and you can suck my...

Do I care if you hate me, do you wanna know the truth?
C'est la vie, adiós, good riddance, fuck you!

[godslave]

Did you hear the one about me being a prick?
Did you know I don't care and you can suck my...

Do I care if you hate me, do you wanna know the truth?
C'est la vie, adiós, good riddance, fuck you!

Good song I didn't know it !!

[Clarke]

It was written by an ILE. The uncovered profiles aren't official Socionics stuff or anything.

Stratiyevskaya is ESI herself, so I don't think it's biased. Well actually, I do think it's biased or at least it's quite subjective. She goes really easy on the NFs I think.

Edit: Well actually, it wasn't written by an ILE, it was written by I/O. I think you're talking about this:

http://www.socionics.com/articles/unisfj.html

I think that this is insulting enough to register as satire for me.

[Clarke]

what kind of strength is, "esi are good at picking out flaws and faults"?

I'm not sure what the problem here is. If the flaws and faults are true, then the ESI seems like s/he would be fairly perceptive.

[Clarke]

I wrote the uncovered article after having had personal and business relationships with many; I've been most attracted to this type over my lifetime, which is supposed to be odd for an LII according to Socionics theory. According to my theory, superego is second only to dual. I certainly don't hate ESI by any stretch of the imagination but I have noted some fairly consistent inner struggles among most of them. If I were to write an uncovered profile for my type, it would be far more frightening. I tend to think that you are ESI because I found that this type routinely says that my article espouses hate, which I think relates to some of their potential insecurities.

a.k.a. I/O

Well, your article seems to be blunt, and maybe occasionally very pessimistic. Due to my sense of humor, I took it as satire for some reason.

That's interesting that you seem to be attracted to Super Ego's. I think that for me, I've been attracted to Benefactors, Semi-Duals, Mirrors, and Extinguishment partners but it seems to be dependent on the person. I think that I've admired some Super Ego's however.

If there's some flaw with the dichotomies and maybe Model A, there's a possibility that I might be a Ne-EII.

[Clarke]

o...

no, i haven't experienced irritation over that either. and who seeks facts, of all things? can't i just google those?

True, but if you had a fact dispenser in your household, you wouldn't even have to touch the computer.

[anotherperson]

probebly because we dont value much Fe or Ne. basically to a newcomer we dont look very fun to be around. of course, any type can be fun or unfun, but ESI will not put more than what is absolutely nessecary (dictated by Fi). Se can also be hard to like, considering it deals in asserting ones present agenda. other types may find it obnoxious or occasionally even fearstrickening. also the lack of consensus on how an ESI behaves adds spark to kerosene. as another person in this threat was getting at, any type can judge. and ESIs (just as any type) are more than just a couple of functions.

[spacious]

I found this and your other comment in this thread to be among the most insightful observations I have read on this website. I’ve been keeping the idea here in mind of late — the tendency of an ESI to monopolize relationships. It’s 1000% true ime, that using Fi alone to relate to a person is truly not enough to let them in, to see them. As you say, it goes far beyond socionics (and how to get there, hasnt been so clear to me over the years. Have been finding my way a bit lately, though, which perhaps is why I feel secure making this comment at this point)

I think my dual brother did Ti correction on me tonight bc I will wait to reach out to someone (in this case, his wife, who got very upset with me in the past and since then I've treaded lightly on her and always felt that she didn’t want the closeness that I did; and I cant get a read on her Fi attitude towards me with living very apart and cant tell TWE she performs closeness/acceptance of me) until I feel more of a signal of our bond, and that will mean I hold back from the person for quite some time (also with ne polr, "what if..")

Grateful and understanding that there's work to do to improve my social skills, overall and also to be more attractive to duals. It's all the stuff on how youre so different from your dual, how will you - not only meet them - but understand them/like them, and how the life events + context in our family of origin that we didn’t sufficiently process as to how they affected our relship, and also just how you can repulse your dual (he's been highly turned off by and upset with my social missteps in the past- I listened to some advice from a possible IEE on a podcast talking about how to make yourself more approachable, and I've been feeling a bit more 'brave' in taking some social 'risks' lately to attempt interactions lately, when usually I would just feel SO lost as to I guess the So-instinct stuff, bc it's my blind spot, "how do I interact w this person that I don’t know well in a socially fluid way? I'm soooo inside my own thoughts and feelings, I can't really intuit what would make sense to them bc I don’t know them and we don’t have a history together; and just the shortsightedness, the narrow range or scope in which ESIs can relate to people, as articulated by Tallmo before, and which I dead a*** aGREE with.

Well. I posted right around this time last year about how insightful I found that comment of his, and I have continued to find loving-kindness meditation a wonderful doorway into understanding other people's minds a bit better. A teacher of this practice said to the audience in our group session, "How you care about yourself -- everyone cares about themself [sic?] just as much as you care about yourself." I was immediately like !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . I would say that I'm highly, highly self-protective [yes, healing my insecure attachment style…] and perhaps because most people that I encounter and know do not present as anywhere CLOSE to the degree of self-involvement / out-loud voicing of stream of consciousness self-talk that I do in social interactions - I guess I perceive other people as so much more chilled out than I am..? And I didn’t think that they might be as tuned into their INNER exPERIENCE as I am. O_O. Soo that was a game-changer. (Not claiming that everyone has the same Socionics IM functioning, or something; I'm talking about the "we are more alike than we are different" idea, such as of Maya Angelou, "anything human I can relate to bc I'm human" core ~essences that we have as HUmans. Which I've struggled to understand in the past as a social actor and social agent in the world.

Well, there ya go. Good night (/good day, good "now") if anyone has made it this far! <3. I do lurk and enjoy what people share here, generally speaking.